Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 18 of 22 without it.
Without skill82%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Identifies ScholarOne Manuscript Central as the resubmission platform
Names ScholarOne Manuscript Central as the designated resubmission system
Advises defending scope conditions with evidence rather than diluting the broad-significance claim
3 fixed18 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+14 pp
Tokens
+31%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 3
Prompt
I'm working on a resubmission response letter for an educational journal R&R. Reviewer 1 asked for school fixed effects while Reviewer 2 wants us to drop the qualitative section, but the handling editor emphasized integrated methods in their letter. Please review my response draft and provide a structured assessment. Make sure your final output contains status checks for: editor key points addressed first, complete reviewer comment coverage, each comment tagged as concede or rebut with supporting evidence and location references, reviewer conflict resolution explained to the editor, protection of broad contribution claims, update status for anonymization and data materials, and the final manuscript submission route.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Prioritizes addressing the handling editor's emphasis on integrated methods before resolving reviewer conflicts
Passed
Passed
Identifies ScholarOne Manuscript Central as the resubmission platform
Missed
Passed
case-01 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md102 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal (aerj-rebuttal)
An AERJ R&R is a strong signal — but acceptance generally needs the handling editor satisfied
and the reviewers moved toward yes. The response letter must address every comment, defend the
contribution, and keep the revision coherent. The editor adjudicates; reviewers advise.
When to trigger
An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
A reviewer requests analyses or reframing that would change the paper's claims
Writing the cover note to the handling editor summarizing the revision
Strategy
Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The handling editor signals which points
are decisive. Solve those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (framework, design, or
evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R2 wants the opposite of R3, say so, choose a
principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the
other.
Protect the contribution. Add robustness, clarify scope, strengthen the framework — but resist
changes that dilute the broad-significance claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather
than over-claiming.
Keep masking and standards intact. The revised manuscript stays anonymized; update analyses,
exhibits, and the data/reporting materials so everything remains reproducible and standards-compliant
(see aerj-transparency-and-data-policy).
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Use when drafting the revision and response letter after an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across a multi-round developmental process. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (amj-review-process).